LAV's are great for moderate cross country in southern climates but has anyone here tried driving a Grizzly or Bison in deep snow, doesn't work to well. Churchhill Manitoba February -60 our 2 tracks, 1 Arvil and 1 Queen Mary freeze up after only 2 hours of been shut down, Diesel fuel runs like mollasses in this temp, batteries freeze and burst. Coy CSM orders Maint to get them back up, They have to place a herman nelson heater hose into each track to heat up the engine and the fuel tank and then slave them of one of the Grizzlies to get them started, just so they would turn over and then keep them running 24 hrs a day with exception of daily maintenance 1 hr or less. 6 Grizzlies need tires inflated several times daily because of cold temps, must keep them running 24 hrs also. Sentries must keep and eye on the engine temp gauges to ensure engine radiators don't burst from the extreme cold. Try doing this for 3 weeks and then x that by a company strenght of tracks and LAV"s. "Logistical nightmare". As anyone who has done their winter indoc in the artic knows. Armoured vehicles are more of a burden than an asset. Its mucklucks, parka, man power and 3 guys pulling a toboggan who are going to get the job done.

We had 4 NTV's (Northern terrian vehicles) which started even in -60 after being left shutoff overnight. We never had a problem with. Turn on the ignition let the glow plugs run for a few minutes and voila starts every time. The Rangers used them plus their own snowmobiles to get around.

Logged

The first goal of any political party is to stay in power by whatever means possible. Their second goal is to fool us into believing that we should keep them in power.

A politician is like a used car saleman, he'll promise you a "peach" and then turn around and sell you a "lemon"

"Politicians are like diapers, they have to be changed often because their usually full of crap.

If you want to go armored in the arctic, then use the Viking (an armored BV206 on steroids). Not to mention use lots of snow mobiles (For mobility only). The far north is more of an light infantryman's fight.

However last I checked, we are not battling taliban in the North West Territorries.

Logged

I am NOT a privileged white man by virtue of being male or white. I am privileged because I am alive and exercising my right to be who I am!

I have wondered if perhaps having a mech capability within the support companies of the light battalions? Logically, it would be capable of being used in a multitude of different tasks within the company and still service the rest of the battalion or higher? This would perhaps create a greater equality between the battalions as far as inter-changeability is concerned? Just a thought.

Logged

Humans have 2 ears and only 1 mouth. Logically, they should listen 2x more than they speak-The true social paradox

This would not work. As pointed out elsewhere, mech infantry is more than a mode of transport: it's a mode of fighting, a mode of thinking. Though similar to a distanced observer, especially when the GIBs get out of the back, mech and light are not the same. Also, please note that all infantry battalions are currently re-orging such that they will all have 2 x mech coys and 1 x light coy. 9 battalions, all the same.

Both mech and light infantry have roles. However, the operating environments we find ourselves in these days predominantly favor mech infantry. Light infantry is specialized and often has difficulty sustaining itself. Mech infantry has greater staying power and brings greater firepower to the table. If I had the choice, I would only use light infantry when mech could not be used. Why? Because I want the fight to be drastically unfare, destroying as many of the enemy as possible while sustaining as few friendly casualties as possible.

Even armies that have their own integral helicopter resources have trouble sustaining light forces in the field. Most light forces operating in Afghanistan spend alot of their time operating from vehicles such as HMMV, LUVW etc... LAV can go most of the same places. Why wouldn't you want to have greater protection and be able to shoot at night, on the move, accurately (3 things that give you the decided advantage).

Having said the above, mech infantry must have the mindset that they are willing to get out on the ground and fight the dismounted battle. If that means advance to contact, dismounted patroling and ambushes, humping hills and mountains -so be it. Mech infantry should also be prepared to conduct airmobile ops.

Mech and light can cooperate. Yes, light can seize a bridgehead. The opposite is also true. Mech can secure an LZ for rapid buildup of light forces on an objective, then act as intimate support, reserve or just another maneuvre element. The important thing is not to unnecessarily restrict our thinking.

This would not work. As pointed out elsewhere, mech infantry is more than a mode of transport: it's a mode of fighting, a mode of thinking. Though similar to a distanced observer, especially when the GIBs get out of the back, mech and light are not the same. Also, please note that all infantry battalions are currently re-orging such that they will all have 2 x mech coys and 1 x light coy. 9 battalions, all the same.

Does this mean that all the light Coy's will be jump capable ... aka Para Coy's ... ?

Does this mean that all the light Coy's will be jump capable ... aka Para Coy's ... ?

Nope, just the light companies of the three Third Battalions - and that is NOT going to work.

Logged

"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

...note that all infantry battalions are currently re-orging such that they will all have 2 x mech coys and 1 x light coy. 9 battalions, all the same.

Wow...here's a crazy idea...keep the 6 mech battalions and 3 light battalions untouched and as force expansion progresses in the coming years stand up 3 more light battlions. 12 battlions. 6 mech and 6 light. Fits pretty well into the 3 year managed readiness cycle of having 2 task forces ready to deploy aside from a surge and strat res TF.

Has anyone in the puzzle palace thought of this? Does anyone else see the merit in this obvious solution?

Logged

"I know that some of us here want Canada to be limited to peacekeeping, but peace must be established first." -Rt. Hon. John Turner, former Liberal PM

Wow...here's a crazy idea...keep the 6 mech battalions and 3 light battalions untouched and as force expansion progresses in the coming years stand up 3 more light battlions. 12 battlions. 6 mech and 6 light. Fits pretty well into the 3 year managed readiness cycle of having 2 task forces ready to deploy aside from a surge and strat res TF.

Has anyone in the puzzle palace thought of this? Does anyone else see the merit in this obvious solution?

Though not in the puzzle palace, what you propose makes too much sense. Go back to growing dope, bubbles

The reasoning behind the change was in fact due directly to OP's. It has been ascertained that light companies are less then useful in the environment were currently operating in for the next decade or so. This does not mean that Light Infantry is a skill set that is now dead in the CF as some people like to say simply that in our current organization and training scheme the Light Bn's are not finding a role. As it is C-Coy 3VP is the last light company on the TO&E for OP Archer (to my knowledge) In fact we on roto 2 LAVed our light coy from 2 VP ASAP when it was clear that the Gwagon was not a good idea and the Nyala was not a fighting vehicle. With the 2 Mech and 1 light Coy concept your getting the best of both worlds in the perfect world. You get 2 companies that have sustained mobility and fire power and one compnay easily transportable. You also get depth in your infantry as everyone gets a taste of the others and the skills set mix and match. You also avoid what is happening right now with 3 VP C-Coy where they cannot even if asked to, LAV up the company. Now you're light Coy can LAV at any time and your 2 LAV Coy's can go light if and when needed.

The reasoning behind the change was in fact due directly to OP's. It has been ascertained that light companies are less then useful in the environment were currently operating in for the next decade or so.

Whoever figured this out is an utter idiot The issue is NOT the Light Infantry but a Chain of Command that has not a CLUE on how to employ them (yes a stunning example would be the Brit incompetance in using the Para'sin Helmund)

Quote

This does not mean that Light Infantry is a skill set that is now dead in the CF as some people like to say simply that in our current organization and training scheme the Light Bn's are not finding a role. As it is C-Coy 3VP is the last light company on the TO&E for OP Archer (to my knowledge) In fact we on roto 2 LAVed our light coy from 2 VP ASAP when it was clear that the Gwagon was not a good idea and the Nyala was not a fighting vehicle.

2VP was NOT a Light Coy -- it was a NONLAV LAV Coy

Quote

With the 2 Mech and 1 light Coy concept your getting the best of both worlds in the perfect world. You get 2 companies that have sustained mobility and fire power and one compnay easily transportable. You also get depth in your infantry as everyone gets a taste of the others and the skills set mix and match. You also avoid what is happening right now with 3 VP C-Coy where they cannot even if asked to, LAV up the company. Now you're light Coy can LAV at any time and your 2 LAV Coy's can go light if and when needed.

All IMO of course.

Your missing the entire issue with LI - and Mech in that they fight and think differently -- meshing them into ONE unit will do no one any good -- in fact it will degrade both.A LAV coy without LAV's in not a Light coy. The fact you cant understand that make it seem to me that its not worht explaining the rest to you.

Well geese HS I was just about to go get high! But there's a problem...Steve French pooped in the LAV...

Quote

The reasoning behind the change was in fact due directly to OP's. It has been ascertained that light companies are less then useful in the environment were currently operating in for the next decade or so. This does not mean that Light Infantry is a skill set that is now dead in the CF as some people like to say simply that in our current organization and training scheme the Light Bn's are not finding a role.

I don't know I disagree. Mechanized forces can do things that light forces cannot do and vice versa. In Baaz Tsuka, a Company Group was used in real mechanized warfare and that job probably couldn't have been conducted effectively by anything else. Likewise, mechanized forces cannot do alot of the light infantry stuff. Light forces conduct amphibious/airborne/airmobile ops and excel in urban ops. It would have been very difficult to patrol the Tora Bora mountain region with mechanized infantry platoons...

The way I see it we are in this situation by default, not by any light forces doctrine. That situation finds us with 6 mech inf battalions and 3 light inf battalions; all were meant to be mechanized, but lack of funding denied us of equipping a third of our mechanized force with IFVs. This may be a blessing in disguise...maybe we should invest more into our light fighters.

Most of the ops in Afghanistan aren't conducting real mechanized warfare. The LAVs are just performing battlefield taxi roles with a decent weapon for fire support. If we purchased more Nyalas with RWS, these could perform nearly identical function than was previously mentioned. Only diffrence is less hitting power and offroad ability. Could we not purchase these for the light inf battalions to address the shortfalls of light forces in this particular operation? Nyalas and LAVs seem to be doing fine conducting ops together...

Ever since the creation of militaries, armies have always - and will alway- use light forces. It's just a matter of how to effectively equip and employ them.

« Last Edit: March 02, 2007, 20:51:03 by Bubbles »

Logged

"I know that some of us here want Canada to be limited to peacekeeping, but peace must be established first." -Rt. Hon. John Turner, former Liberal PM

Most of the ops in Afghanistan aren't conducting real mechanized warfare. The LAVs are just performing battlefield taxi roles with a decent weapon for fire support. If we purchased more Nyalas with RWS, these could perform nearly identical function than was previously mentioned.

Dead wrong and wayyy out of your lane here dude. LAVs are very much in intimate support of the troops on the ground doing much more than the battlefield taxi that you imply. It isn't across the Fulda Gap mech warfare but mechanized warfighting it is.

Nyala is a crap vehicle for fighting....hard to dismount from, light weapons(relativly speaking in comparison to a tank/LAV). Nyala shouldn't be used as and isn't an intimate support vehicle. Great convoy vehicle especially in high IED areas but not a good battle field taxi at all.

An interesting note: I am associated with the RAF Regiment while in theater, and they do their patrols in Land Rovers (similar in appearence to the Landrover 110's used in the Gulf War in terms of kit). They find the vehicle is useful in getting places no one else can get to, and also the armoured Landrovers were simply too heavy to move along the trails they use (constantly getting bogged down).

They used to be a mech infantry unit, equipped with light tracked vehicles like the Scimitar and Stormer, and most of the RAF Regiment pers are of the opinion that these would have been ideal in the situation we are in today, having excellent cross country mobility and useful firepower. They are quite pragmatic about protection; Landrovers have none, and even the Scimitar and Stormer only provide protection against small arms and shell splinters; if the enemy want to get you with mines or IED's they will continue to build larger ones until they find the formula for success.

The point being there is no one formula for our success. The Canadians in theater are bulked up to fight set piece engagements against a dug in enemy (which happens) while the RAF Regiment are equipped to perform patrols to disrupt enemy activities in their AOR. If there was a need to assault dug in formations around here, obviously the Canadians would be put in their place. Even in places like Panjawaii or Helmand province, there is probably lots of scope for using light formations to shape the battlefield so the heavy forces can come in and swing the hammer. My own opinion is maybe we should be looking at something like Scimitar and Stormer class vehicles; they provide excellent mobility and firepower, and the battalions equipped in this fashion should be backed by a heavy battalion with vehicles designed for the assault.

Logged

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

The Ops we are doing today favour mech infantry for a number of reasons (protection, firepower, sustainment etc..). I firmly believe that light infantry has its place but the fact is we must man and equip to the task we have, with some prudent planning for other theatres/future conflict. Were we engaged heavily in rugged terrain, perhaps increasing our strength in light infantry would be something under consideration right now.

Mindset is important. However, I believe that it's more a function of command rather than whether a unit is light or mech. There is no smoke and mirrors to learning a skill or method of delivery. All infantry must have the mindset that they will get to the battle and destroy their enemy using whatever means of movement necessary.

A LAV Coy without LAVs is not a Light Coy - agreed. However, a light infantry Coy without helicopters will have a great deal of difficulty getting around and sustaining itself in most theatres. Hence, in Afghanistan, light forces from all nations spend most of their time riding around in vehicles. If you had a choice between a LAV and Hummer (or LUVW) and knew that a LAV would go 90% of the places you were actually going to, which would you choose?

Bubbles, MJP,

I agree with MJP's comments. RG-31 is not a fighting vehicle.

LAV may be restricted to the role of battlefield taxi. However, it is certainly capable of being much more.

a_majoor,

Were you 34 Sqn? If so, I spent a small amount of time patrolling in your AOR.

During Roto 1 we operated in a very decentralized manner, trying to disrupt enemy throughout Kandahar and often Helmand province. For the most part, we used the same vehicles that the forces in theatre have now.

Whoever figured this out is an utter idiot The issue is NOT the Light Infantry but a Chain of Command that has not a CLUE on how to employ them (yes a stunning example would be the Brit incompetance in using the Para'sin Helmund)2VP was NOT a Light Coy -- it was a NONLAV LAV Coy

Call it what you will I6 but on the TO&E and as it was called by everyone on the Roto (including the Coy itself) It was our Light Company. Simply because they came from a mech Bn does not mean they did not spend a year training in Light Inf Tactics.

Your missing the entire issue with LI - and Mech in that they fight and think differently -- meshing them into ONE unit will do no one any good -- in fact it will degrade both.A LAV coy without LAV's in not a Light coy. The fact you cant understand that make it seem to me that its not worht explaining the rest to you.

You'd be surpised what I could get, however since all my training has been Light and non LAV even though I have spent 7 years in a Mech Bn. Does not mean I do not know the difference in the thinking and the way they fight between Mech and Light. I was simply laying out how the new army thinks for those not in the know. I don't know if I agree or disagree. If it works or not has yet to be seen but I am willing to watch and shoot and not call this idea down just based on old ways of doing things.

I believe the light vs mech issue here is beyond the level of this thread (how to organize our Inf Bns).*

To correct what you are saying though ('cause I'm OK with flame wars ), the Ops, as our leadership has chosen to conduct them ...require LAVs, Leo2, etc.

To defeat the bad guys' immediate objective (make the cost is too high in casualties so that the Western nations will withdraw), we have opted for an increasing emphasis on force protection (Iltis -> Nyala ->LAV/Leopard....Leopard 2s !) which will make the mission an easier sell in Ottawa.

Personal experience and reading, however, do not provide many examples of successful counterinsurgencies which relied significantly on armour and superior firepower over engaging the population more effectively. COIN, militarily, is a light infantry game....and Canada is opting out of the Light business.

COIN is also a long-term proposition, and the government (and perhaps some military leadership) has an event horizon limited to the next election and/or two rotos, max.

Within the context of our current ops and current leadership's vision of those ops, arguing about whether the third battalions should be light, or even whether one company in nine could maintain a parachute capability, is rearranging deck chairs.

----------------------------* That being said, Light and Mech are different. Combining them in one battalion only bastardizes both - - kind of a typical Canadian solution.